Discussion of basic algorithms for the law of S:D (supply & demand) on CM (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

pompeii -> Discussion of basic algorithms for the law of S:D (supply & demand) on CM (1/16/2010 7:42:37 AM)

What do YOU think the basic S:D criteria are for meeting someone here on CM?

Someone asked the classic how-many-people-do-you-actually-meet-on-cm question and I provided the basic "keep trying but YMMV" answer ... and then got to wondering about my college courses decreeing the "law" of supply and demand.

Assuming the theory holds true for our kinky world, what's your thought at how the law of S:D might apply on CM?



LillyoftheVally -> RE: Discussion of basic algorithms for the law of S:D (supply & demand) on CM (1/16/2010 7:50:05 AM)

I think on cm less so but on our british site ic network/friends lists make a difference, if you are known in the scene you have a much higher chance of meeting someone on here. I know on ic one of the first things i check is who they have on their list.



juliaoceania -> RE: Discussion of basic algorithms for the law of S:D (supply & demand) on CM (1/16/2010 7:54:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompeii

What do YOU think the basic S:D criteria are for meeting someone here on CM?

Someone asked the classic how-many-people-do-you-actually-meet-on-cm question and I provided the basic "keep trying but YMMV" answer ... and then got to wondering about my college courses decreeing the "law" of supply and demand.

Assuming the theory holds true for our kinky world, what's your thought at how the law of S:D might apply on CM?




I think that there is about equal numbers of everyone when one takes out Nigerians, people who have fake profiles of other sorts, men who are after plain kinky sex and not really into BDSM, professional dominants, fetish models... etc etc etc.

The one group of earnest individuals that are in too abundant of supply are male submissives. This demographic has more trouble than any other from what I have seen



Lucienne -> RE: Discussion of basic algorithms for the law of S:D (supply & demand) on CM (1/16/2010 8:02:23 AM)

I've never received formal instruction on the "law" of supply and demand. Must it really involve algorithms?



sexyred1 -> RE: Discussion of basic algorithms for the law of S:D (supply & demand) on CM (1/16/2010 8:05:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompeii

What do YOU think the basic S:D criteria are for meeting someone here on CM?

Someone asked the classic how-many-people-do-you-actually-meet-on-cm question and I provided the basic "keep trying but YMMV" answer ... and then got to wondering about my college courses decreeing the "law" of supply and demand.

Assuming the theory holds true for our kinky world, what's your thought at how the law of S:D might apply on CM?



My thoughts on your theory are this:

Ever since I came to this site 3 years ago, I have received and still do receive, alot of emails, like many women here. I would say 90% of the emails are inappropriate (proclivities, distance, intelligence, attraction).

An overwhelming amount of emails asks why, as a single sub who they find very attractive, am I still single. It would be interesting to give them a more statistical reply than my usual: "I have not really ever been single since age 16, it is only right now that I am. Did you ever stop to think it is not me but the men I am meeting that has resulted in my being single now?"

Of course the statistics you refer to in supply/demand are all quantitatively based and do not reflect qualitative points such as chemistry, compatibility, luck, timing, compromise and other indefinable aspects.

It is akin to when companies try to force algorithms on salespeople about how much activity will likely forecast results; in essence, they are trying to turn an art into a science and in 20 years of successful sales experience, that has never worked since it is dependent on individual factors.



pompeii -> RE: Discussion of basic algorithms for the law of S:D (supply & demand) on CM (1/16/2010 8:06:20 AM)

Here's my rough-ass guess at what key factors affect the "law of S:D for meeting someone on CM".

I'm assuming the main S:D factors for meeting someone are: Sex, Proclivity, Location, & Attraction

SEX:
While females must make up approximately half the human population, for some reason, a female is in much higher demand here than a male (my humble experience). Likewise, males disproportionately hunt for females online so the oversupply of males appears to be overwhelmingly larger than that in real life.

PROCLIVITY:
I'm not sure what I'd expect as a normal ratio of dominant to submissive on CM, but I'd wager the Dom/Domme's outweigh the subs by some large ratio, perhaps 5:1 or 10:1 (I'm guessing - maybe someone has better stats).  A male Dom might have, I'd calculate, something like 1/20th to 1/100th the chance of meeting someone here that a female sub could.

LOCATION:
Additionally, our physical location would vastly affect the supply of people to meet, face to face. I'm not sure what the geo-hotspots are for our kinky predilections (that might be the topic of a future thread), but I will assume that the kink-aware cities will have much greater supplies per unit area than suburbia while the country farmer would have to sheep around a bit more.

ATTRACTION:
I'm assuming advertised physical & mental attraction will likewise affect our chances of actually meeting someone, but only after the first three determinants are met. For example, a comely local submissive waif and a handsome nearby dominant stud each might have greater chances of physically meeting someone than the average curlers-in-her-hair housewife (even so, she'll be inundated with responses worldwide) or the lowly average working joe (who has the hardest time of all).

I suspect it matters less whether a submissive female is mentally astute (as she'll be in demand nonetheless based on prior criteria); but I assume it matters greatly for the average-looking joe that his mental abilities be well over par in order to even the odds against him ... Nonetheless, for males, their overall hunting ability will be the main determinant (often evening the odds by sheer attempts!).

Putting that together, it's hard to give it an algorithmic scale, but I'll go out on a limb and try:

While the selection criteria is distributive, I'm making the summary commutative for simplicity.
Sex: Give women a few points for starters, say +5 to start; men start below par, say at -2.
Proclivity: Add a point or two for submissive tendencies; subtract a point or two for Dominants.
Location: Difficult to say, but kink-friendly hotspot cities get a point or two; suburbia adds nothing; and the deep countryside loses a point or two.
Attraction: The physical:mental attraction scale is different for females versus males.
For females, younger & thinner (I'm guessing at, say, size 6 or below) adds 5 points; older and thicker (let's say size 8 or above) adds 4 points; anything else (purely for simplicity because I'm already on a limb here), let's say adds 3 points (I admit, I'm guessing here but the basic algorithm is, I think, sound).Mental attraction is more one of attitude than intelligence (I'm relying solely on my own experience here so I need help on this).

For males, the scale is much easier to quantify, basically 4 criteria: tall & wealthy & fit & astute adds 4 points; and subtract a point for each of those you don't embody (i.e., if you're neither tall, nor wealthy, nor fit, nor overly astute, you get -1 -1 -1 -1 for a total of 0 additional points. Intelligence is always a difficult factor to quantify but it's much more important in the male (since there are so very many of them) than it is for the female.

Of course, all this depends on how you measure so we can really only talk in generalities ... but I'm assuming that the laws of supply and demand truly hold, even for finding someone on CM to meet and enjoy.

Whether or not MY proposed algorithm is accurate. ... there must be (right?) an algorithm that should describe the supply and demand curve for meeting someone on CM!

What do YOU think the basic S:D criteria are for meeting someone here on CM?



RedMagic1 -> RE: Discussion of basic algorithms for the law of S:D (supply & demand) on CM (1/16/2010 8:14:16 AM)

The ability to make a woman believe that she would really enjoy spending time with you. 

Different women enjoy different things, so you need to find out what she enjoys (not just what she says she enjoys to be polite to you) and build a bridge between that and yourself.  Or say "no way" and terminate contact.



InvisibleBlack -> RE: Discussion of basic algorithms for the law of S:D (supply & demand) on CM (1/16/2010 8:51:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompeii

Here's my rough-ass guess at what key factors affect the "law of S:D for meeting someone on CM".

I'm assuming the main S:D factors for meeting someone are: Sex, Proclivity, Location, & Attraction



I think those all factor into the equation - but I would posit that you've left a few out. While there are obviously way more men on this site than there are women, I suspect that if you could automagically screen for men and women "actually looking for a long-term relationship" and "willing to make the necessary effort and sacrifices to get together and attempt the relationship" you would find that there are more submissive women than there are Dominant men. I have no objective statistics to back this up, it's just a feeling I've gotten from reading the boards and being on the site for six months. While I could be entirely wrong about this, I think that you need to factor in some sort of term for whether someone is honestly on the site looking or just amusing themselves in some way that does not involve ever seeking a relationship, and how serious they are about it.

A heterosexual male who lives next door and is wildly attracted to a submissive women on this site could be married and using this site for a vicarious thrill, or a horny kid living in his Mom's basement looking to goof around, or a scammer.

I suppose what I'm saying is, you need some sort of measure for "quality".



Lucienne -> RE: Discussion of basic algorithms for the law of S:D (supply & demand) on CM (1/16/2010 9:07:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack
While I could be entirely wrong about this, I think that you need to factor in some sort of term for whether someone is honestly on the site looking or just amusing themselves in some way that does not involve ever seeking a relationship, and how serious they are about it.
...
I suppose what I'm saying is, you need some sort of measure for "quality".



I agree with your overall impression. In lieu of "quality," I'd recommend measures of "seriousness of purpose" and distinction as to what that purpose is. A submissive female looking for a monogamous ltr is going to have a harder time finding a match than a dominant woman looking for a kinky boy toy. I realize that "only interested in getting their kink served" is not the most respected type on the forums, but there's plenty of people like that on the other side and I'd bet they account for a decent number of people "meeting through CM."



InvisibleBlack -> RE: Discussion of basic algorithms for the law of S:D (supply & demand) on CM (1/16/2010 9:14:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucienne

quote:

ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack
I suppose what I'm saying is, you need some sort of measure for "quality".



I agree with your overall impression. In lieu of "quality," I'd recommend measures of "seriousness of purpose" and distinction as to what that purpose is. A submissive female looking for a monogamous ltr is going to have a harder time finding a match than a dominant woman looking for a kinky boy toy. I realize that "only interested in getting their kink served" is not the most respected type on the forums, but there's plenty of people like that on the other side and I'd bet they account for a decent number of people "meeting through CM."



Agreed. I didn't mean "quality" in any sort of cosmic or personal value sense, but more a sense of actually looking for what they claim they're looking for. "Seriousness of purpose" is a better term.

From the point of view of successfully "meeting someone", two people looking to scene meeting and having a great scene together is a valid meet up. So is two people looking for a long term M/s relationship meeting up.

If you're looking to apply the laws of supply and demand, you have to screen out the ones who aren't providing a "supply" or who don't have an actual "demand". They're just noise in the system.



AnimusRex -> RE: Discussion of basic algorithms for the law of S:D (supply & demand) on CM (1/16/2010 9:23:12 AM)

Hey when I signed up for this, nobody told me there would be math.



Missokyst -> RE: Discussion of basic algorithms for the law of S:D (supply & demand) on CM (1/16/2010 9:27:45 AM)

I try not to engage mathmatical equations until I have had at least 4 cups of coffee in the morning. But I did wish to point out something I have noticed here, on bondage, on alt, and fet, in the last few years. More people have listed switch on their stats and a surprising amount have gone from hetrosexual, to hetroFLEXIBLE.

I wonder if it is the desire to have anything which has driven the change. Trade offs to top or bottom.. and opting for either sex ((shudder)), to experience some play.




antipode -> RE: Discussion of basic algorithms for the law of S:D (supply & demand) on CM (1/16/2010 9:44:23 AM)

quote:

what's your thought at how the law of S:D might apply on CM?


You're stretching way beyond reality, dude. Said law applies to commercial transactions - you could apply it only where prostitution is legal. I would concentrate more on R/L than on college wisdom.



VaguelyCurious -> RE: Discussion of basic algorithms for the law of S:D (supply & demand) on CM (1/16/2010 10:12:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: antipode

quote:

what's your thought at how the law of S:D might apply on CM?


You're stretching way beyond reality, dude. Said law applies to commercial transactions - you could apply it only where prostitution is legal. I would concentrate more on R/L than on college wisdom.



CM might not be commercial but it still exists as a series of transactions.

Nobody is concentrating on this to the detriment of R/L; it's an interesting topic of discussion, is all...



osf -> RE: Discussion of basic algorithms for the law of S:D (supply & demand) on CM (1/16/2010 10:35:28 AM)

there is a lot of noise in the system,

when trying to hone in on the signal you want to sample you somehow have to filter out the noise, not an easy or quick thing to do



Lucienne -> RE: Discussion of basic algorithms for the law of S:D (supply & demand) on CM (1/16/2010 10:38:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious

quote:

ORIGINAL: antipode

quote:

what's your thought at how the law of S:D might apply on CM?


You're stretching way beyond reality, dude. Said law applies to commercial transactions - you could apply it only where prostitution is legal. I would concentrate more on R/L than on college wisdom.



CM might not be commercial but it still exists as a series of transactions.

Nobody is concentrating on this to the detriment of R/L; it's an interesting topic of discussion, is all...



I kind of agree with you both. It's both silly and interesting. I think the S:D issue is probably more illustrative of the number of pros, scammers and "fakes" and how they effect the assorted price points for getting what one wants out of the site. Also, the extent to which some people view a bdsm relationship as a luxury good, the value of which is somehow demeaned by the presence of  pros, scammers, "fakes," and, heaven forbid, people just interested in getting their kink served.



DesFIP -> RE: Discussion of basic algorithms for the law of S:D (supply & demand) on CM (1/16/2010 10:41:24 AM)

Males hunt more for women, here and in the real world. How often does a man in a bar/restaurant get a drink sent to him by a single woman dining by herself? Damned rare for that to ever happen. How often do women get drinks sent to them? I'm betting nearly every woman here has had people try to buy her drinks on frequent occasions.

Men want to hook up, women are more likely to prefer to go home alone than with Mr Wrong or even Mr Right Now.

So I think the demographics are pretty comparable to the real world. However since dominant women are rarer than submissive males, that is where the numbers are skewed. Made much worse of course since submissive males are often male bottoms who seek to get their kink needs met but have no interest in relationship needs.



LadyNTrainer -> RE: Discussion of basic algorithms for the law of S:D (supply & demand) on CM (1/16/2010 11:47:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompeii

What do YOU think the basic S:D criteria are for meeting someone here on CM?

Someone asked the classic how-many-people-do-you-actually-meet-on-cm question and I provided the basic "keep trying but YMMV" answer ... and then got to wondering about my college courses decreeing the "law" of supply and demand.

Assuming the theory holds true for our kinky world, what's your thought at how the law of S:D might apply on CM?



It's a fallacy.  If you were talking about X number of square pegs, round pegs and triangular pegs that had to fit into X number of square holes, round holes and triangular holes, statistics would apply.  But the fundamental issue here is that very few people are seeking a one size fits all relationship. 

As an example, not all heterosexual men are going to be interested in all heterosexual women and vice versa.  If you have a situation where there's a reasonable amount of flexibility in the pegs and holes and people who aren't that picky, there are wider ranges of possibility.  But it's tough to narrow romantic possibilities down to hard statistics.  Simply put, not all people are compatible with each other even if statistics say they are.  We're people, not pegs and holes.  The fun you can have with pegging and holes notwithstanding.  ;)

I'm a dominant woman.  My field of potential personal partners is *extremely* narrow, because I'm looking for someone who fits into my lifestyle and is compatible.  Specifically, if you're not a gamer/RPG/SCA/Rennie geek, an academic/intellectual type, bisexual and comfortably poly, my peg does not fit your hole no matter what our respective orientations are.  However, if you're a male submissive and you are all or at least some of those things, your odds (with me specifically) are basically 100% of getting a personal meeting, probably some play, and very possibly a relationship.  So what does that kind of situation say for the statistics?  The generic numbers simply aren't relevant, and the kinds of statistics that mean success or failure in finding a compatible partner aren't the kind you can easily quantify on paper unless you have a checkbox for stuff like "Has basic social skills" vs "Lacks basic social skills", "Is a decent and considerate human being seeking a personal relationship" vs "Is a selfish jackoff looking to use people for sex/is a selfish gold digger looking to use people for money".

I can't speak for everyone on the site, and I've seen a number of ads (mostly from men) that indicated a lot less pickiness and a lot more willing to start a BDSM relationship on the basis of "I have a dick, you have a pussy, (or I am sub you are dom) so let's get it OOOONNN BAYBEE!11!!!11LOL!"  But in the real world it doesn't usually work so well that way. 

So are those statistics meaningful?  Naaah, not so much.  Even if there were a thousand "male submissives" on a site who did not fit my criteria and one who did, the technical odds here are not relevant.  There are also more general criteria that are true for probably the majority of dommes, mostly referencing the above suggestions of having basic social skills and being considerate of others.  Unless you can adjust for the number of profiles that have very slim odds of a positive response from anyone who is actually seeking a meaningful relationship with another human being, your numbers of "x many male doms, x many femdoms, x many male subs, x many female subs" are not what will drive the individual odds for anyone.



Andalusite -> RE: Discussion of basic algorithms for the law of S:D (supply & demand) on CM (1/16/2010 1:18:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Missokyst
More people have listed switch on their stats and a surprising amount have gone from hetrosexual, to hetroFLEXIBLE. I wonder if it is the desire to have anything which has driven the change. Trade offs to top or bottom.. and opting for either sex ((shudder)), to experience some play.

Well, I'm a heteroflexible switch, and have identified that way for about 10 years now. It isn't desperation in the slightest, and even when I've been in a monogamous relationship with one man in one BDSM role, I still felt more comfortable using those terms to describe myself (if relevant). Back when I was playing casually, most of my playpartners were men. The exceptions I made weren't for lack of offers, it was because I had some sort of connection to that specific person on an individual basis (a few women and transgendered people). It's not a "trade off to top or bottom," I enjoy both - sometimes even in the same scene.[:D]

Pompeii, I'm a bit confused by your saying that Dommes are more common - from what I understand, they're more rare than female submissives or male submissives.

Overall, I agree with LadyNTrainer. Even if you could actually come up with an accurate statistical model, which is incredibly unlikely, it still won't apply in any *specific* case. Statistics only work in the aggregate.



StrongSpirit -> RE: Discussion of basic algorithms for the law of S:D (supply & demand) on CM (1/16/2010 1:33:48 PM)

If you ignore the scammers and professional women then:
Most common
1.   Submissive men
2.  Dominant men
3.  Submissive women
4.  Dominant women.
least common.

As for the false idea that there are a lot of people on here not actually into BDSM, that is most often held by people that define BDSM as "what I am interested in." 

There are a lot of people that are sadists or masochists that think Dominants and Submissives are not "real" because they have no interest in pain.  Similarly there are a lot of Doms and Subs that think masochists aren't "real" because they are not submissive enough and that sadists are not "real" because they are not dominant enough.

Not to mention how people treat embarrassment players if you don't enjoy their form (you want me to wear WHAT?)

Be clear about what you want - embarrassment, sensation, or control - and accept the fact that not everyone here wants to do exactly what you want to do.  That doesn't mean they are liars or fakes.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
3.320313E-02